9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 309 - AT - Income TaxGrant of registration u/s 12A denied - communication on wrong address - Held that - As considered the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as it reflects from the same that application u/s 12AA was filed before the Ld. CIT(E) on 16.03.2016 but up to 29th August, 2016 nothing was done by the Ld. CIT(E) and by letter dated 10.08.2016 it was reminded by the Ld. AR to the CIT(E) for doing the needful and it reflects from the proceedings that thereafter only the Ld. CIT(E) acted, however, although the Ld. CIT(E) tried to communicate about the proceedings by sending the notices to the assessee but could not get success because the letters could not be delivered due to in-sufficient address on which the Ld. AR submitted that the address of the assessee is correct, even otherwise it reflects from the ITR 2015-16 as well. However, the Ld. AR failed to understand how the communication had not received by whereas the address of the assessee is correct. We are of the considered opinion that in order to give proper opportunities of being heard, it would be in the interest of justice to offer proper and reasonable opportunities to the assessee to represent its case. Hence, we remit the case to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to decide afresh. Notices to be again sent to the address mentioned in form No.10A or correct address provided by the Assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal against order dated 23rd Sep., 2016 passed by Ld. CIT (Exemption) u/s 12AA of the I. T. Act. - Grounds of appeal: Misapplication of law, lack of opportunity for the appellant to present views, rejection based on irrelevant grounds. - Dispute over communication and hearing process between the assessee and Ld. CIT(E). - Ld. CIT(E) declined registration due to non-delivery of opportunity letters and doubts on the society's existence. - Assessee's claim of not receiving communication and inability to present its case. - Disagreement between Ld. AR and Ld. DR on the reasonableness of the order passed by Ld. CIT(E). - Judicial intervention required to offer proper opportunities for the assessee to represent its case. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT (Exemption) under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, alleging misapplication of law and lack of opportunity for the appellant to present views. The grounds of appeal highlighted the arbitrary nature of the decision and the rejection based on irrelevant grounds, challenging the justification provided by the Ld. Commissioner. 2. The dispute arose from the communication and hearing process between the assessee and Ld. CIT(E). The application for registration under section 12A was filed on 16.03.2016, but no action was taken until 10.08.2016. The Ld. AR reminded the Ld. CIT(E) to decide on the application, emphasizing the lack of communication or hearing opportunities provided to the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) declined registration citing non-delivery of opportunity letters and doubts on the society's existence due to insufficient address. The order emphasized the onus on the applicant to pursue its case and the need for submissions to verify the society's activities and genuineness. 4. The assessee contended that no communication was received, hindering its ability to present the case effectively. The Ld. AR argued for the correctness of the address provided, questioning the failure of communication delivery despite the correct address. 5. The Ld. DR supported the order passed by Ld. CIT(E), considering it logical and reasoned. However, the disagreement between the Ld. AR and Ld. DR highlighted the need for judicial intervention to ensure proper opportunities for the assessee to represent its case effectively. 6. The Tribunal remitted the case to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the provision of proper and reasonable opportunities for the assessee to present its case. The directive included sending notices to the correct address provided by the assessee and drawing adverse inferences if communication failures persisted, with the assessee instructed to provide an effective address for future communication. 7. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, reflecting the need for fair and just proceedings in accordance with the law.
|
